Warbird Information Exchange

It was announced that VAQ-209 the Star Warriors are leaving Andrews AFB and moving to NAS Whidbey Island, WA. They will transition out of the EA-6B PROWLER and into the EFA-18 GROWLER.
The move will bring 5 aircraft, 30 Officers, and 190 or so Enlisteds to Ault Field. (and greatly enhance my viewing pleasure).

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

YIKES! Is this a good idea?

The Growler's flight performance is similar to that of the F/A-18E/F. This attribute enables the Growler to perform escort jamming as well as the traditional standoff jamming mission. Growlers will be able to accompany F/A-18s during all phases of an attack mission.[24] In order to give the Growler more stable flight for the electronic warfare mission, Boeing changed the leading edge fairings and wing fold hinge fairings, and added wing fences and aileron "tripper strips".[25]
The Growler has more than 90% in common with the standard Super Hornet, sharing airframe, Raytheon AN/APG-79 AESA radar and weapon systems such as the AN/AYK-22 stores management system. Most of the dedicated airborne electronic attack equipment is mounted in the space that used to house the internal 20 mm cannon and on the wingtips. Nine weapons stations remain free to provide for additional weapons or jamming pods.[26] The added electronics include AN/ALQ-218 wideband receivers on the wingtips, and ALQ-99 high and low-band tactical jamming pods. The ALQ-218 combined with the ALQ-99 form a full spectrum electronic warfare suite that is able to provide detection and jamming against all known surface-to-air threats.[24] However the current pods will be woefully inadequate against emerging threats.[27]
The EA-18G can be fitted with up to five ALQ-99 jamming pods and will typically add two AIM-120 AMRAAM or AGM-88 HARM missiles.[28] The EA-18G will also use the INCANS Interference Cancellation system that will allow voice communication while jamming enemy communications, a capability not available on the EA-6B.[29] In addition to the radar warning and jamming equipment the Growler possesses a communications receiver and jamming system that will provide suppression and electronic attack against airborne communication threats.[26]
The poor reliability of the ALQ-99 and frequent failures of the built-in self-test (BIT) have caused crew to fly missions with real faults. The ALQ-99 has also interfered with the aircraft's AESA radar, and has imposed a high workload on the two man crew, along with reducing the Growler's top speed.[30]
Boeing is looking into other potential upgrades; the ALQ-99 radar jamming pod may be replaced in the future, and the company is looking into adding weapons and replacing the satellite communications receiver. The Growler is the initial platform for the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) which uses Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) technology to focus jamming power exactly where needed. The NGJ was to be implemented on the F-35.[31] However in May 2012 the U.S. Navy decided to focus NGJ integration on the EA-18G for an expected in-service date of 2020, and defer work for the F-35.[32] Boeing is also looking at exporting a Growler Lite configuration without the jamming pods for electronic awareness rather than electronic attack.[33]

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

........and what do you suggest as an alternative? The EA-6 is 44 years old

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Um...How old is the F15? the B52? The A10? Seems like the thing should work before we deploy it, doesn't it? I guess we can't have cool AND functional at the same time, can we?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Great, except the F-15, B-52, or A-10 don't literally crash into the deck and get yanked from 160 MPH to zero in approximately four airplane lengths or put up with 3+ G launches in every op. And, since the F-35 won't and can't do the job, looks like we'll just have to use the EFA-18.

What you call 'tripper strips' are vortex generators and they are most effective at making airflow stick to the wing for positive aileron control at low airspeeds instead of having the airflow shear away leaving the ailerons to thrash around with no airflow to work against, which just might be sort of important to the two folks inside in the middle of the night, in a force 4 storm trying to find a pitching sheet of steel in the middle of a pitch black ocean. As far as changing the wing fold hinge covers, could it be that they now do a better job as stall fences to keep a stall from washing along the wing and causing the entire wing to quit flying?

I'm really sorry the ALQ-99 isn't up to your demanding standards but apparently the DoD has other opinions about it's capabilities and potential growth that don't seem to mesh with yours, and Boeing was most likely told 'you're going to install this' to which I'm pretty sure they replied 'OK by us'.

As far as degradation of speed, it's primarily a loiter and play 'music' setup not a Buck Rogers blow your hair off whizbang, and if it's jamming the opposition effectively, then it could be as slow as a CESSNA 172 since it can't be 'seen' by the enemy I'll bet it's pretty effective since one EA-6 can electronically 'shut down' the entire West Coast. Just an opinion, but maybe you shouldn't be so critical of things and designs that you don't fully comprehend.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

The ALQ-99 is probably one of the only units that actually half works TBH. Yeah, it's got problems (some of them serious), but then again, it's still a fairly new system and Boeing is dealing with the same problem their predecessors at Rockwell dealt with and then they continued with the B-1B. When you have multiple different companies/contractors responsible for different systems, integration doesn't always work. The B-1B suffered badly from this for its first decade of operation (hampered even more by Congress and the USAF not properly funding the program after the post-1991 defense spending cuts) until Boeing was able to convince the USAF and Congress that they had a plan to fix it and implement it. As such, the B-1Bs now are running the IDECM system that the F/A-18E/F/G are running internally in addition to a modified version of the F-16's AN/ALR-56M RWR and it finally seems to be working okay... 20+ years after introduction.

ECM systems are the hardest systems to design and operate for a reason. While we have the EC-135's and EP-3's, do you really think the Russians, Chinese, French, or anyone else other than MAYBE US, a few UK, and possibly Canadian design companies actually provide the DoD with full and complete documentation of their radar systems so that we know exactly how to jam them in all modes, including the war emergency modes? Nope. So all ECM systems to be truly effective need to be "agile", that is able to receive an incoming signal, determine it's a threat, and then jam that transmitter specifically. If it doesn't talk perfectly with the offensive systems, it's possible that it'll cause interference since the frequencies the offensive radar operates on is close enough to that of enemy transmitters to cause problems potentially. It's happened with the B-1B, the F-16, the F-15E (which had serious problems early on that almost kept it out of Desert Storm had it not been needed so badly for the LANTIRN system capabilities), and now the E/A-18G. It's called high technology for a reason.

I agree. It is an opinion. And my opinion (decidedly less educated than your own and yet fully qualified to judge what little data I have been presented with) is that it's sort of weird that we would shut down a functional system in favor of a non functional one.

The poor reliability of the ALQ-99 and frequent failures of the built-in self-test (BIT) have caused crew to fly missions with real faults. The ALQ-99 has also interfered with the aircraft's AESA radar, and has imposed a high workload on the two man crew,

How does a "poor reliability" system which causes an aircrew to fly with "real faults" get fielded when we seem to have a system which operates better than that (as you said it can 'shut down' the entire West Coast) and is already in the field?
I'm just askin, cause you know, the information you've provided in reply to my early question is so far aimed mostly to point out how stupid I am and not to answer my question. I could point out how little you probably know about forensic anthropology and how one can determine the height and age of a corpse by its condition, aspects, and environment, and act as if you're stupid as well, instead of just ignorant and curious if you ever ask a question about it. Typically I don't though. I just answer the question because, you know, it's better to have an informed discussion. Not enough Geritol this morning? Yes, I understand that the airframes I mentioned do not get slammed around on a flight deck. However, your EA-6 is only 7 years older than the F18. So my question is still valid despite your decidedly un-useful reply. In an age of airfraome lasting 50 years, 7 years is the blink of an eye.

CAPflyer, maybe you can answer this since the Inspector seems to want to insult me instead of explaining. How does a tested and true system get replaced by a barely functional one? Is it so awesome that even badly broken it outpaces the old system? How can something that only works part of the time be better than something that evidently has years of field testing and works most of the time? Is the ALQ-99 just that awesome? What the hell does it do that makes them want it so much? I can understand the F18 being an upgrade over the prowler, I just don't get why we're fielding equipment that seems brokedick. Are we falling that far behind everybody else?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Far from tryimg to insult you, I was attempting to make the point that while the PROWLER was and is a marvelous and long lived program, it's equal to driving a 1968 sedan instead of a newer, more advanced vehicle. The expensive tooling used to build the airplane is long gone to China and been returned as a ship load of refrigerators, the drawings are long gone through a shredder, the company that built it no longer exists except as the hyphenated add on to another companies name.
The PROWLER has been tweeked, tugged, pulled, stretched, and yanked on more tha Joan Rivers' face has, it's served admirably but it's time for it to leave the stage.

The airframe modifications are indicative of advancements made in design refinement over the years thanks to much improved design computers programming and more refined fluid dynamics software. The EA-6 grew from the A-6 which first flew in 1958 (making the basic design 54 years old) and I don't see a lot of 707's or CONVAIR 990's still makin' a buck these days.

If you have issues with the performance or reliability of the ALQ-99 why not drop a note to your elected officials telling them how, in your opinion, your tax money is being pee'd away, then take a deep breath while you wait for an answer.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Definitely the geritol. Will they eventually explain why its so much better than the previous unit that it's worth fielding despite it not working? I don't really expect to get an answer from them either, but thanks for the suggestion. It's a simple question, maybe not deserving of a simple answer, but there has to be a reason why the upgrade is considered so important when it doesn't seem to work. If out of fifty nukes only five work, well that's still five nukes that are going to incinerate at least something in Russia. It would be better if all of them worked, but if it's some or none I'd rather have the some in a war. What is it tat makes this new unit so much better?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

I was able to do a little more digging, and here's the thing -

The ALQ-99 has been in use since VIETNAM. What is probably going on here is the ALQ-99 is simply to friggin' old and the Navy is hanging on for dear life to it because they simply have nothing to replace it with. The faults they're flying with thus are most likely a result of integration issues (new hardware with old strap-on equipment) that will probably be worked out over time, but the better resolution would be (and it won't happen under the current administration, especially if reelected) is to replace the ALQ-99 with a modern system.

At least the EA-18G has the IDECM of the other versions which is much more agile even if it works at a lower power.

Finally, here's a better explanation of the ALQ-99 - http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Tacjammer.html

Thanks CAPflyer! That's an outstanding presentation and explains a lot of my questions directly or indirectly--thanks so much! I never really understood what electronic warfare was really about--now I have a general understanding of how and why they exist, and a better understanding of why they wanted to improve to an F18. I guess when you call a jamming pod an ALQ-99 you are using it in general terms, like calling an iphone 4s an iphone. Despite being around since Vietnam, they've obviously been improved and adjusted over the years. The units they're mounting on the F18 must be generations beyond the originals, but not yet fully adapted to the F18's new abilities.

Will the new F18 carry HARM?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

You're welcome-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

As of right now, I don't believe the Growler will be armed. However, the Super Hornets are equipped for it as is the Viper, which they'd probably send in with the Growler covering.

Minor point on the EC-135s. They've been retired. Perhaps you meant the RC-135W/V/U-series.

_________________
Bob

Sorry, yes I mean RC-135. Dunno why I put EC since those were the Airborne Command Posts. And they're not all retired. One (dunno if they MDS'd it or not) KC-135R is configured the same as the (E)C-135C "Speckled Trout" and used by the CS/USAF as his airborne command post on overseas missions in addition to being a testbed for a bunch of AFFTC missions at Edwards.